[WATCH] Ralph Cassar: ‘Green is the colour of progressives and environmentalists in this election’

Ralph Cassar believes the strongest message voters disillusioned by politics can give is to “vote green” because not voting does not worry the big parties. 

“Not voting is not a message to the Labour and Nationalist parties; it does not worry them because the choice will still be made,” he says. “The strongest message is to vote green because we have shown consistency and done politics seriously for years.” 

This is the message Cassar delivers at the tail end of a 30-minute interview in which he defends green politics and addresses the perception that it is socially and economically detrimental to ordinary people. 

Cassar insists climate change is a reality that will not go away and its impacts are being felt everywhere by ordinary people. Transitioning to a more sustainable green economy is a must, he argues but insists it has to be socially just. 

He cites as an example the blanket subsidies on fuel and electricity, which ADPD has opposed. Cassar says the blanket provision simply “encourages waste” and benefits most those who use most. 

“Of course, there should be subsidies on the amount of energy needed to live comfortably, but should someone who lives in a small apartment who has only one airconditioned room subsidise someone who has 10 rooms all with ACs running 24 hours a day? This is squandering of tax money,” he tells me. 

The the millions spent on subsidies should have been spent on alternative modes of public transport, support for those with mobility issues and investment for a quicker transition towards more domestic renewable energy sources, he says. 

When I ask him about the pushback towards green policies across the EU, Cassar blames this on the European People’s Party that abandoned the Green Deal when it saw the popular mood on the continent shift. 

“Instead of trying to strengthen the European social fund to support the transition, they [EPP] simply changed course because they do not have strong [green] principles… In Malta, the PN was proposing in parliament a motion to declare a climatic emergency but in the European Parliament the EPP was doing otherwise,” he says. 

The following is an excerpt from the interview. 

Watch the full interview on maltatoday.com.mt, Facebook and Spotify 

It has not been a good year for the European Greens both on national level in different member states and in Europe with a pushback against several environmental regulations the party was supporting. What caused this? 

The environment refers to our quality of life. It is something that impacts us in our daily lives… five years ago, because the wind was blowing in that direction, the biggest political party in the European Parliament, the European People’s Party (EPP), and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had embraced the Green Deal. Instigated by the climatic crisis, this led to several initiatives being taken that improved everyone’s lives across Europe. We then had the disruption caused by the pandemic and when the CDU (Christian democratic party) in Germany started seeing that there was growing resistance to some measures, instead of trying to strengthen the European social fund to support the transition, they simply changed course because they do not have strong [green] principles. It is the EPP, the political family to which the Nationalist Party belongs, that changed its position according to how the wind was blowing. In Malta, the PN was proposing in parliament a motion to declare a climatic emergency but in the European Parliament the EPP was doing otherwise. 

But the climatic emergency did not go away and we continued seeing rivers drying up or overflowing… nonetheless why did ordinary people push back against the Green Deal? Somewhere, something went wrong. 

These are short term considerations. First there was the crisis caused by the pandemic and on top of it the changes that needed to happen. The EU is still too much focussed on market spending suffice to say that 38% of its budget is spent on so-called farming, which is nothing more than financing of large multinational companies that produce pesticides, and there is not enough focus on the social aspect of policies… 

Farmers were among those protesting against the Green Deal, including in Malta. 

Maltese farmers are right to protest but some of the European farming lobbies represent the agroindustry and are not real farmers. These industries want the status quo. They want us to continue destroying the land with pesticides; they want us to have very cheap food in terms of production while farmers take nothing [from the profits they make]… It is the EPP that supports the agroindustry; we support genuine farmers… 

Ordinary people often view the transition to a green economy as being a burden on them because of higher taxes… just look at the higher cost to import goods in Malta by ship as a result of the new emissions tax on shipping introduced in January. 

[The emissions trading scheme] has been discussed at least since 2010, so when the Maltese government gives the impression this happened overnight [it is wrong]; we could have prepared for this change for the past 15 years… The Maltese government could have negotiated a transition. I agree with an emissions trading scheme because it benefits us; it benefits the people of Birżebbuġa. This is pollution that is not visible to the naked eye but which is killing people. Around Europe, some 300,000 people die every year because of pollution. As for the price increases, every container carries around 20,000kg, so even the price increases divided by the weight works out at less than a mil per kg. It is not the emissions trading scheme that is causing price hikes in food imports but the savage market that also speculates on food… 

Over the past two years, government has been subsidising electricity and water bills and fuels. ADPD came out against the subsidy on fuels; isn’t this another case where ordinary people will be made to shoulder a heftier burden if the subsidy is removed? 

The biggest beneficiaries from the fuel subsidy are those who burn and waste a lot of fuel. If we want to reduce pollution, the subsidy on fuels could have been invested on alternative transport systems; it could have been spent on the creation of a bus rapid transit system. It could have been spent on those who having mobility issues and require specific transport to get around. We are against blanket subsidies that benefit everyone irrespective of how wasteful they are in the use of fuel. The same can be said for electricity prices. Of course, there should be subsidies on the amount of energy needed to live comfortably, but should someone who lives in a small apartment who has only one airconditioned room subsidise someone who has 10 rooms all with ACs running 24 hours a day? This is squandering of tax money… Subsidies could have been spent on a quicker transition towards renewable energy produced locally… 

Do you agree with a one-size-fits-all Europe? 

No, I do not agree with a one-size-fits-all Europe but we must not use this as an excuse not to change or to justify what is bad and low standards. 

What are Europe’s biggest challenges in the next five years? 

It depends on which part of the continent you live. For us who live on the southern periphery of the continent, the challenge will depend on what happens in north African countries like Libya. Somebody living in Finland does not experience the challenges that may arise by what happens in Libya. Likewise, we do not feel the same panic that others living in countries bordering Ukraine and Russia are feeling… I cannot fault them for having this sense of fear and unfortunately this will shift the focus on arms spending. The fear risks opening the doors to more militarisation but I am not in a position to tell these people not to worry. 

How do you find a balance in these circumstances because the issue of defence and security has surfaced in this electoral campaign, even in Malta? 

It is a difficult discussion to have. But sometimes in Malta we do forget things. Despite our neutrality, we had for many years an Italian military mission based here that offered technical assistance; Malta’s guarantors for neutrality were Libya and Algeria on one side and Italy and France on the other side. Being neutral does not mean not taking care of your own defence needs… on a European level Malta should be included in defence discussions; we should be involved and then it is up to us to decide to what level our contribution should be… 

Why should people choose ADPD on 8 June? 

People should choose green because it is the colour of progressives and environmentalists in this election. But apart from the principles we represent, [voting green] can also represent a message that people want politics to be a serious discussion on every subject rather than theatrics and tribalism.